| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
451
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Reply
To be fair ergo from a safer sex point of view, if she manages to stop it going in her eyes and her skin is unbroken, it's probably safer than intercourse without a condom, which seems to be standard in straight porn and still shocks me.
It is degrading I guess but no more than S&M type stuff.
|
05-26-12 01:30pm
|
Reply
452
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Love it but I find I am not attracted to Asian men, and it's difficult to find gay bukkake at all - the main gay bukkake site is Asian guys.
|
05-26-12 01:28pm
|
Reply
453
|
Mom Loves Mom
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
I think adult websites think their customers are too embarrassed about their purchase to complain - the service can be awful.
I am disppointed in Epoch - I thought they were trustworthy but this puts me off using them as a biller.
Maybe PU should have a section where we can review billing providers too!
|
05-25-12 05:46pm
|
Comment
454
|
Gay Sugar Daddy
(0)
|
|
05-25-12 10:30am
Replies (2)
|
Reply
455
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Reasonably fast, though I'd love it to be even faster! I'm satisfied though.
|
05-24-12 04:57pm
|
Reply
456
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
Nope, it didn't really occur to me! I tend not to go in for big stars when it comes to porn anyway - I like the more "guy next door" kind!
I can't stand Twitter and Facebook anyway.
|
05-22-12 05:30am
|
Reply
457
|
Wow Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
Another top-quality review, thank you!
|
05-21-12 11:28pm
|
Reply
458
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Poll
I never thought I'd be a notebook person but got my first last year and it's the only computer I need now. Of course, now I finally gave in it's all about tablets now so still behind the times!
|
05-21-12 10:26am
|
Reply
459
|
Latex Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
LatexRyan's Review
Fascinating review - not an niche I am very interested in but I do understand the frustration of finding a site which seems to cater to your niche only to find the owners obviously don't really understand it and are just putting in a token nod to it with standard porn.
|
05-19-12 03:37pm
|
Reply
460
|
N/A
|
Reply of
OneMan's Poll
Not really relevant to me, but I don't understand why condom use would put off the viewer in hetero porn. Your focus on is on the girl, presumably? Why would the cock having a condom on it be a problem?
I chose director instructions being heard, but even that depends on the video. I can ruin a scene if there's a fantasy to maintain, but I quite like to hear it if it's made sexy, like the director is getting into it!
|
05-18-12 05:30pm
|
Reply
461
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Anything more than once a week is frequent to me. Weekly updates are regular but not freqent.
Does depend a bit on the content though. If the site makes long videos once a week is more acceptable than if it's a site that breaks a movie up into short scenes - then I expect more updates.
|
05-16-12 06:02pm
|
Reply
462
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Poll
Websites first, then by model name within the website folders.
If the model is on more than one website, I cross-reference them in the titles.
|
05-14-12 01:29pm
|
Reply
463
|
Daring Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
Yep - gotta agree, that's one well-written review with everything in it!
|
05-13-12 06:19pm
|
Reply
464
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
As in so many things, quality is more important than size! I'd rather have a good quality smaller screen than a big cheap one.
|
05-12-12 07:57pm
|
Reply
465
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I can cope with a few, but I don't like there to be loads, as I am already paying for access to the site. What especially annoys me is when a site is particularly expensive but they still do it - sites like CFNM, CMNM and First Auditions are particularly bad for that.
I also hate it when they mix banner ads for similar content in between the videos - for a second I think a banner ad is content on the site, go to watch it and find it's an ad!
If it's for another site in the network I also think the ad should be showing a discount unique to you as a paying member of one of their sites, so you get some kind of reward for the loyalty you've already shown. It amazes me how few companies give even a small token discount to a sister site - I think they'd make a profit that way and encourage loyalty and rebills.
I know porn companies have to make money, but we're the honest paying customers who have paid for their content, so ads can be a little too much on top.
Still, I suppose I see ads in magazines I've paid for. As long as it keeps the site cost down and they don't make it look like content I can cope, but I think sites should be careful.
|
05-10-12 08:44am
|
Reply
466
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I'd say several weeks - sometimes I go through periods when I'm a bit "porned out" and don't really look at them for a while - but it never lasts long!
|
05-09-12 03:29am
|
Review
467
|
First Auditions
(0)
71.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
* Well-established (since 2005) so almost 5,000 videos (though mostly short).
* Uses guys from all over Europe, with the occasional American or Australian guy thrown in
* I actually do believe a lot of these guys are straight - if it's staged it's done very well
* Realistic, stark filming with no silly roleplaying in the main interview scenes - you really do get a sense of the guys personality
* No DRM
* Unique content
* Guys often begin their porn careers here
* New "Second Auditions" concept is REALLY hot - showing men having their first gay sex and being "broken in" - again - if it's staged it's staged REALLY well. |
| Cons: |
- The more imaginative content like "Groping Hands" and "Second Auditions" is the best, but there's little of it - updates are very infrequent and sporadic and "Groping Hands" seems to have been discontinued.
- VERY expensive - $39.95 1st month, $34.95 after
- Search options very primitive
- Early shoots photos-only - not made clear on joining. Streaming only available on post-2009 shoots.
- Camerawork and lighting can be poor.
- No option for feedback or suggestions, no comments, no community feel.
- Models are often given different names to the ones used even on their sister sites, and only use first names, so you get several models under the same name!
- Files not particularly high-quality by modern standards.
- New moving watermark is VERY intrusive.
- Lots of banner ads for other sites
- Primitive site design and search looks like something from the late 1990s. |
| Bottom Line: |
First Auditions is a site which claims to show a models first introduction to porn and shows their first "casting couch" interview. Most of the models claim to be straight, most quite believably (unusual on gay porn sites, where "straight" actors are often suspiciously gay-acting!).
It follows a pretty rigid format - a clothed interview asking why they want to do it, an examination where they are made to strip and be measured, show their asshole etc, and finally a masturbation and ejaculation "test" to prove they can get it up and shoot on camera.
This can get very "samey" - you know pretty much what will happen in each shoot, and obviously there's very little action. Still this is an auditions site, and it does that well. The guys often seem quite genuine and nervous and the interviewers are good at getting their real personalities to come out.
Technically the site is nothing special. Downloads are WMV only and are "standard" (read - poor and tiny 640 x 360) or "high quality" (read - pretty average 960 x 540). No HD content here and no alternative to WMV files that I can see. Downloading is quick though, and flash streaming is pretty quick, though you have to wait until it's done to jump back and forwards. No DRM, though they do have a REALLY annoying new watermark which begins at the top of the screen and slowly moves down the bottom! WHY MUST IT MOVE? Much more distracting!
Search is equally poor - a simple list in alphabetic order of first names (often repeated, often different to same model used on sister sites) or a search by country of origin.
To be honest I am bored of their standard content, and didn't expect to join this site again, but I rejoined because of the "Second Auditons" videos, which involve them taking a guy (usually who said in his interview he'd never do anything with a guy!) and "breaking him in" to gay sex. This REALLY turns me on, and the preview showed a model I adore, so I rejoined really for that video alone.
It didn't disappoint - the Second Auditions videos are another level - longer (over 30 minutes), better filmed and REALLY hot - the men are believably straight and inexperienced and it's so exciting to watch them do gay sex for the first time.
Sadly, there have only been FOUR Second Auditions videos since the first one was made back in August 2011! They seem to make them only every three months. For a site which charges so much per month, one of these videos every 3 months is really mean.
"Groping Hands" videos were hot and more frequent - this is where anonymous men grope and strip the guy - but whilst there's a good selection of 44 of videos videos in archive, no new ones have been made since September 2009. Before that they had selected scenes from their sister studios - they only seem prepared to do one different type of video the standard auditions ones at a time, but they still advertise Groping Hands in the preview even though they don't make it clear they're not making any more.
This site has some excellent content which is why I've been tempted to join three times, but I never stick around. The updates seem to have settled down to only six a month, from a peak of more than double that - and for the price you pay that's simply not enough for continued membership.
Joining for the first time is well worth it - there's a lot of content here - but you quickly become bored with the standard audition videos and disappointed and the infrequent updates, lack of news (they never announced Groping Hands was discontinued officially, just stoppd them) and small amount of what I'd call "premium" content, ie. the Groping Hands and Second Auditons ones.
A site with flashes of brilliance, but most content gets samey and dull quickly, it's expensive, the technical quality is indifferent and the website navigation feels a decade out of date. I'd recommend you join it once for the archive, but don't expect to stick around. |
|
05-07-12 04:12pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
468
|
Rubber Tanja
(0)
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Review
Always good to see a webmaster replying positively and constructively to a review - I wish more would, well done.
Well-written review but if you used paragraphs it would be much easier to read.
|
05-07-12 03:30pm
|
Reply
469
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Ooops! Yes I think I do! I guess I was thinking of jacking it! I've never tried one TBH, I don't really use toys, but they seem very popular and are appearing in more and more gay porn films which is why I suggested one.
|
05-07-12 03:23pm
|
Reply
470
|
Hustler Unlimited, formerly Hustler
(0)
|
Reply of
MiztaBlu's Review
I'm amazed a huge and well-known company like Hustler has such basic technical issues and sloppy labelling on their website - much smaller companies manage to do it much better without their resources!
Really odd.
Excellent review.
|
05-07-12 03:20pm
|
Reply
471
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Reply
So sorry to hear that graymane. If I lived close I could over and help you out - but as I'm a guy I guess that wouldn't be so hot for you!
Have you tried something like a fleshjack? They seem to be very popular now, and I'll bet you could fix one somewhere so you could use it without having to use your hands to hold it.
|
05-07-12 03:14pm
|
Reply
472
|
Oldje
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
Excellent review. Sounds like something so typical of porn - excellent content let down by lousy site organisation. You seem to get a slick website with average content or great content on a poor webite, but rarely both!
I agree with you about music in porn - drives me insane!
|
05-07-12 03:11pm
|
Reply
473
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Lionheart's Poll
Can't comment on girls, but I'd say it depends on the person - glasses suit some people and not others. Also depends on the scenario - a suited businessman looks more appropriate in glasses than a manual worker might somehow.
|
05-04-12 03:57am
|
Reply
474
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
No - it didn't occur to me. I do always look at profiles just out of interest, though - just not specifically to check their age, and age didn't occur to me as a factor in understanding their reviews.
|
05-03-12 11:58am
|
Comment
475
|
Straight Hell
(0)
|
|
04-30-12 11:52pm
Replies (1)
|
